Dr Realism

This is something I read a few weeks ago and have been thinking about.
In the book, "Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong,"

"It occured to us that the French are really the aboriginies of France. The word aboriginies is usually associated with primitive peoples now, but it really just means "original." There was plenty of upheavel throughout French History, but no definitive break with the past. In America, the parallel would be something like this: the Indians won, not the cowboys, and the Aztecs went on to create a country that sent rockets into orbit and delivered the mail twice a day, but still celebrated human sacrifice on the stairs of the pyramid.
For North Americans, the past and the present are two categories. We of the New World associate modernity with something novel that arrived on a ship and pushed aside every tradition that stood in its way so it could build something new.

...Tocqueville was struck by how new the New World was. "America is the only country where we can clearly see the point of departure," he wrote-which makes America more the exception than the rule.Tocqueville identified one of the fundamental differences in American and European thinking and culture and it still holds. Americans have no past, while Europeans are loaded down by ancient customs, habits, and prejudices that shape their behavior.

What do you think? Do Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders look at things from a different prespective than all the other peoples of the world?

JerseyPerson14

Well most of the people in the US Canada and down under are the poor folk from Europe

But we have diverged because those people wanted to get away from Europe.

I think we do

Melisende

Yes, but not even the Aborigines of Australia are the "original" inhabitants - the original "aborigines" allegedly came from the pacific islands some many tens of thousands of years before and were, again allegedly, wiped out.

Essentially, from 1778 onwards, the history of settlement in Australia has been of European origin - so we would tend to identify with the European (ie: English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) cultures. However, from about 1970s onwards this (European settlement) has decreased in favour of settlement from other nations.

But I guess, our (Australian) history and culture from a "white" perspective is fairly "new". But with the influx of other cultures, their history would be of a much older origin.

I am not really explaining myself well, am I??

Dr Realism

Our countries may have a lot of immigrants from older countries and those immigrants might identify with their home country, but the second and third generations often do not, thus they have a different perspective than their parents or grandparents.

As for historic vendettas, Take for instance Vietnam. They faced numerous occupations by the Chinese, sometimes for centuries at a time. The long track record tells them that they must be wary of China. It's something embedded in their national psyche. It's the same with Korea and Japan. Hundreds of years of wars and invasions have established a track record and a national psyche of enimity.
But the history of the US is so short that we don't have much of a track record. We've rarely even had repeat military engagements so there is a lack of anxiety towards any particular country.
I think perhaps President Wilson demonstrated this aspect of US thinking in that he just couldn't see things the way other countries saw them.

Melisende

I guess Australia would be a little different from the US and Canada in that we did not have another nation battling for predominance (ie: English and French).

The only time Australia has been touched by an invasion from another nation was WWII. So I guess we are a little more isolated than many other nations, as our border do not immediately touch another nations'.

Dr Realism

In that case, I'd say Australia fits this notion of lacking historical perspective even more than America. Australia has virtually no track record of ever fighting an Australia vs _______ War. Australia has usually fought under Britain in the World Wars and as a part of a coaltion from 1950-2007. And given its geographic location and that its an island, it's never had any "natural predators or rivals."

Tudor chick

Australia is the only western country that has not had a civil war! White against white. Something to be proud of I would have thought

Just because Australia’s military forces have been connected with another country or coalition does not been it has no war history. There were thousand and thousands of Anzacs that died in all the wars since the Boer war. Surely that is a significant history. Most of those forces were and still are under Australian command. We also have many peace keeping forces around the world. So hardly no track record!

Also because we don’t have a white history that is thousands of years old it doesn't mean the history we do have is any less significant either.
I have many stories in my family history of epic pioneer adventures that my ancestors have achieved that would match any European (French) history. As many other Aussie families would have. This all adds to make up what type of society our country has.

I think one of the things Australia has that I have not heard else where, is the ethos of giving someone “a fair go"
Australia is a multi cultural society and has adopted many traditions of those new migrants, regardless of how many generations of those people lived here. This would not have been successful without a "fair go"

So getting back to the original question, as fair as Australians go we do look at things differently, because we have had to for survival and to create a new country. This is not a bad thing.

Is France is any better for being a country that has not had a diverse history? War, war and more wars Maybe they should try to look at things differently

Melisende

I suppose we Aussie's have many "past lives" ...

Well .... we have one "Australia vs _______ War" - against those pesky Kiwis!!!!

Dr Realism

Perhaps you see, "Lacking Historical Perspective," as a bad thing. Let me put it a different way. Australia, NZ, US, Canada, have very little or don't have any "Historical Baggage," being carried around.

My post about Australia was not meant as a negative thing.
Yes Australians have fought in many wars, but there were never any Australia vs New Zealand or Australia vs Indonesia Wars. That's not a bad thing. I'm merely pointing out that this means Australia will, as you said, "give a fair go," and look at a country as it is now rather than what it was or what it did 200 years ago. The Polish, for example, will pretty much always see Russia through the prism of the last 500 years rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. The various partitions and occupations will always be a factor in the national attitude and in any dealings with Russia.

Australia has never been invaded or partitioned by anyone, so everybody, I suppose, has a clean or almost clean slate with your country.

I'm not praising France. That would be last thing I'd ever do. I'm merely using it as an example.

Melisende

I get where you are coming from, Dr.R.

We have never really had the sense of insecurity as many other nations have experienced. Which is why we are called "the lucky country".